Over the past few months, I’ve noticed a new round of references to the white supremacist “great replacement theory,” so I thought I’d offer a post to explain the dark corners from which this came and the nightmares to which it can lead. At its heart, the “replacement theory” argues that immigration — usually of non-white groups, but some sort of menacing “other” — is a carefully orchestrated conspiracy. Immigration is not, in this paranoid view, the result of individuals and families seeking to better their own lives, but the result of a sinister scheme to ruin
“when used to define a certain group of people as being better than any other.”
There is another bad faith tactic you are using. You keep appending that on to fit the scenario you want. Race and culture are different things. They can influence each other but they are different. Both shape identity but that doesn’t mean that either most inherently inform a person that they are better than someone with a different race or heritage. Has it often been used that way in the past, yes, but it’s not inherent to the notions of race and heritage.
Your examples paint you as awfully convinced that foreigners are completely incapable of integrating into a new society. That’s pretty bigoty. People can participate in multiple cultures. They can pick and choose and blend them.
“It’s like saying that Chinese immigrants to Europe will be European because they live the European culture”
So is the conclusion you come to that they will never be European? They will always be foreign?
You shit on the chess board a little prematurely.
Please, provide examples of heritage and/or colture being used for the betterment of society.
Protip: you can’t.
Heritage and colture are frozen in time and will never be used to improve society because they need a strict set of boundaries to remain heritage and colture. Should a colture be poisoned by external factors it would immediately cease to be the same culture it was a minute ago and would become something different, thus being rejected by those who practice said colture in a religious way.
To make a simpler example you may be able to understand: I am Italian. The thing italians hate the most is ananas on pizza because “this goes against our culture!”
Should I dare to say that I enjoy ananas on my pizza tomorrow (I don’t, but that’s what a thought experiment is) most of my friends would be appalled by my statement and would fight me on that.
Culture or heritage intended as a set of characteristics stereotypical of a certain subset if humans are a cancer to society and should be eliminated.
Of course they could become European, should they decide to leave their culture behind and to homogenise in the society they live in. Unfortunately peer and societal pressure do not allow for such a change and therefore they are doomed to remain marginalized because they cannot accept their culture, heritage or race not being “the best”
Wow dude, you really are a bigot and don’t even realize it. Those poor weak willed soft minded foreigners just can’t think for themselves or change. They are doomed to live only in the context of their scary different culture.
If ananas on pizza is the extent of what you think culture is then you are profoundly ignorant. If you know that culture extends to things beyond that, like music and art as examples, then you are disingenuously misrepresenting culture. If you want to make the case that the entirety of art and music has done nothing good then I’ll listen… skeptically.
There is Culture with a capital C (music, arts, literature, etc.) which is a universal way of expression and then there is culture with a lowercase c (heritage, dialects, common beliefs, traditions, etc.) which are typical of a very distinct group of people being part of a well-defined territory.
The first can and has since always helped human beings create bridges between different groups, since it is a common way to express ones’ feelings and can overcome the language and culture barriers.
The second is used to keep these group apart with the subtle yet very present assumption that each people has “the best” culture when compared to others.
If you cannot understand this difference I think we have a very big communication problem.
Not every foreigner is unable to change, yet many remain stoic in their willingness to not assimilate by regrouping in ghettos when they move abroad. The issue is double-faced, on one side there are the immigrants who are not strong enough to pull out from their social group due to peer pressure and to the beliefs they were programmed to follow from a very young age; on the other side there are the receiving societies which tend to avoid the assimilation of new “cultures” (I’m using brackets to differentiate culture and Culture from now on) because they are afraid of new perspectives and ways of being and would avoid mixing with those to preserve their native “culture”.
Erase culture (intended as heritage) and humankind has only to gain from shedding these old ideas. If we would focus on what we have in common with the others instead of what are the differences between us we would all live much better, don’t you think?
Typical bigot point of view, I know…
So there’s two cultures one that embodies everything you don’t like and one that embodies everything you do like. Convenient. Maybe you should have led with that obtuse distinction.
So some portion of foreigners are stuck in their culture and some are not. We can guess what your estimations of the percentage is, but if you know that it’s not universal then what were you trying to say with the whole Chinese will never be European and Indians will never be German?
Are you aware of the history of state sponsored schools designed to erase cultural identity like you praise? It’s a pretty disgusting path you are skipping down.
Unfortunately it’s not that easy. I do not like all cultures and I don’t hate all “cultures”. Cardi B is music, but it’s really not my jam, superhero movies are a form of cinema, but I don’t really dig them. In the same way there are cultural aspects of different heritages I do enjoy (the Italian food culture or the chinese family unity for example).
What I was discussing it’s the underlying nature of these two concepts: culture creates bridges, “culture” create walls. You can enjoy a piece of art coming from a different society but it’s gonna be a real problem should you confront your beliefs with those coming from a different society than yours.
I was saying that, until humans won’t see their cultural differences as simple joke material, there won’t be a simple way to have a pacific coexistence between different groups of people living in the same region. If we all continue to live our “cultures” as something sacred and untouchable we won’t be able to tear down the walls dividing us all.
Not everything is up to the state, society can and must evolve on its own if we want to improve our lives on this tiny planet. I, for one, am doing what I can to demolish the idea that the "Italian heritage, is something that needs to survive at all costs precisely as it is today by challenging the most idiot aspects of this “culture”. No state intervention required
Really walking back on that culture is fucking evil and has never done anything good stance eh? So we have established that your protip was garbage because culture has plenty of positive aspects, you just want to switch between definitions when it suits you.
“I was saying that, until humans won’t see their cultural differences as simple joke material, there won’t be a simple way to have a pacific coexistence between different groups of people living in the same region” If that is honestly what you were saying you failed utterly to convey that. Instead you said a bunch of weird things about how foreigners can’t change and refuse to integrate.
“Not everything is up to the state” thats not the point. The point is that states have in the past done exactly what you are praising. Taking children away from their families to strip all elements of culture away from them so they could integrate into “civilized” society. Deny them their language, their history. Anything that makes them different, beat it out of them. Literally.
You sound exactly like xenophobe bigots. Those foreigners don’t fit in. They are different and that is bad, they should be more like us. Conform! Though they will never really belong here.
Absolutely not, I’m giving you a better definition of what “culture” means to me through your questions, that’s how a discussion goes usually. My stance about the majority of aspects related to “culture” being bad for mankind is the same from the beginning of this conversation.
Ok, let’s follow your logic and eliminate social services then. What right has the state to determine how a parent or a tutor should educate his child?
You do understand that there are objectively harmful"cultural aspects " that we want to eliminate for the common good?? Mafia is a plague in Italy (and in the world nowadays) and I’d be more than happy if the Italian state would require mafiosi to lose their paternal rights and would help their children find a place in a more civilized family. We would have less mafiosi in a very short time.
Until the 60es in Sicily, Italy, was legal for a man to murder his wife and her lover should he had found them having a sexual intercourse. The state had to issue a law to end this practice because society (even Sicilian women) was unable to abandon this farce of a misogynistic culture. Was this a wrong decision?
In the same way I don’t want Chinese people living in Italy and, at the same time, continuing being enslaved by their compatriots as they were in China. I don’t want families living their life according to the most extreme interpretation of shari’a. There are plenty of antisocial norms disguised as culture, is it really that hard to say that we do not want them in our society??
I’m not talking about any race or culture in particular, I’m not a xenophobe, if you want to classify me you can call me a customs hater. I hate doing things a certain way “because we have always did it like that”, without any supporting evidence about the outcome of your actions. Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good
Oh absolutely yes. You went from your protip of culture has never been for the betterment of society to oh sure plenty of times it has been but thats a different type of culture.
“Ok, let’s follow your logic and eliminate social services then” Not at all what I said. I think you are unaware of the topic that I am talking about. I am not talking about public schools in general. Nor am I talking about social services as a whole, a pretty big leap on your part there. Here is an example of what I am talking about
“Give me a proof about the results of your method and I can consider its benefits towards the common good” what method are you talking about? What are you strawmaning here? Because I didn’t advocate any method.
You seem to think that because a culture can contain any negative elements that suddenly all cultures everywhere are bad. Cultures collectively are way too big and diverse for that reductive view. A single culture is too big and diverse for that view. A culture will contain countless elements and individuals within that culture will adopt and practice those elements to various degrees and get this, some of them can even revise or reject elements of that culture. Culture isn’t static. Getting rid of culture is nonsense because whatever is left after you purge the elements you don’t like is still a culture.